No Stupid Questions

You cannot prove a negative. For example, if I say "prove that you are not a murderer" there is nothing you could possibly do to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have never murdered anyone. This is why you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on someone who claims it was a fraud, not the other way around.

I always felt that the most compelling argument that we did it was that faking it was too risky. If America faked it and the USSR went up and found no evidence that America got up there then that would have been impossible for America's position on the global stage. Remember the Apollo missions happened during the Cold War. Irrefutable proof that America pretended to go to the moon would have been deeply damaging to idea that the might of capitalism was greater than the communists.

America left lots of stuff up on the moon with the idea that someday someone would go back up and see it.

It's also not really a big deal if your friend doesn't believe we went to the moon. What is their ignorance harming, really? They're another cog in the great machine of capital and neither their intelligence nor wisdom is required to keep it spinning

a) Explain why the US hasn't gone back in so long,

Why would they? Nothing of value came from any of those missions and the risk is enormous.

and why with modern technology it seems so difficult? (especially given that NASA has been experiencing numerous delays in the Artemis missions, that certainly hasn't given them a good impression...)

Because transistors are a lot more sensitive to EM than valves. Our current technology miniaturized lots of things, but that also means that a single piece of conductive material (like moon dust) or a single electron (from an em pulse) in the wrong place can wreak havok to it. Old computers required lots more electrons and space for their actual function so they were a lot more resistent to random variations. And we can't make old computers anymore because we don't have the factories for them, and you're not going to create an entire factory just to produce a couple pieces for one mission, so they have to focus on isolating and making things more resistent.

b) How do you verify moon rocks without having actually been on the moon? How did scientists figure out what a moon rock looks like?

The moon is constantly being bombarded by unfiltered radiation because of its lack of atmosphere. This makes it so they're composed of minerals that rarely occur on earth (they usually bind with oxygen or nitrogen in the atmosphere), have different isotopes (because of the radiation) and are much older (because no interference from tectonic movement/rain/wind/etc)

c) Why aren't the old Apollo designs being reused for a moon landing? (by either the Americans or the Chinese)

Because they can't for the same reason the US can't, they don't work with modern electronics, and no one can produce old electronics.

They say that there isn't strong evidence either side (but believes that it is false, saying that "we will see" once someone else lands on the moon)

There is very strong evidence, your friend can corroborate for himself by spending a few thousand dollars (or he can understand that if anyone wanted to they could). First you need to buy a very powerful laser, then a very sensitive sensor, you hook them so they very close together and fire at the moon, you will never get a reading back, because the moon surface is a difuse reflector with a rough surface the light will scatter and go everywhere. However, when the astronauts went to the moon they left retroreflectors in specific locations, so if you pointed at one of those you would get the signal back approximately 2.5 second later.

And what other points can I bring up to definitively say, yes, the moon landing wasn't faked?

I guess it's easier to ask them "what evidence would convince you" because the answer will be none, of there was any evidence that would convince them they would have been convinced already.

Another thing, they also can't believe that astronauts could bring and ride the little moon buggies. I am also partially interested in how that was achieved to be honest!

Not sure what's there to not understand about this, so I'll just say same way cars get to a dealership and you ride them afterwards.

My first question will be "which landing, of Apolo 11, Apolo 12, Apolo 14, Apolo 15, Apolo 16 ot Apolo 17?"

As others have said, you can't change irrational beliefs with facts. This fact will become obvious if you change tacks and start asking this person pointed questions that highlight the contradictions in their belief.

If you do it well, they get enraged by their inability to come up with good answers, and abruptly stop talking to you about it (or stop talking to you at all).

(Also, you can often tell if their belief is rational by whether they ask you sincere questions seeking to understand why you think it's real, in case they're wrong.)

Just tell them that with a telescope they can see the US flag on the moon.

It's not like they would try or something

Stop trying to argue to convince them. Ask them “Why?”

Why would the moon landing be faked? What’s to gain from it? (Correct answer, nothing, and everything to be lost when someone leaks).

There’s answers to all of their questions, but I guarantee they can’t give an answer to Why?

you dont have ti provide anything, the weight of the proof is with the non believer :)

but okay lets go:

beyond all the obvious evidence:

the biggest evidence is around how difficult it would have been to stage it. how many people need to be bribed for eternal silence - this includes suppliers, ex workers, employees, crews, etc...why hasnt anyone admitted the lie in their deathbed?

what I am saying is that it is more difficult to stage this (successfully) than actually do the freakin thing.

Check out professor Dave on YouTube, he just made 2 long videos on the topic

It sounds like you'd literally have to take your friend to the moon in order for them to believe anything, but there are reflective sensors (I don't know exactly what they are called or what they do) that scientists shoot lasers at for science.

Maybe you can find a video that explains them and shows a scientist interacting with them? Although, I suspect they'd just claim that was all faked too.

Apollo 11 landing site taken by ISRO's Chandrayaan-2 Orbiter:

As an aside for anyone interested in this particular conspiracy theory, check out the great black comedy mockumentary Operation Avalanche

The reason we can’t build the same thing as before is because the tooling is all gone, the set up of tools used to make those parts no longer exists. Half of designing a large complex thing is setting up all the machinery to actually produce what you want, testing and checking and dialing everything in, verifying that what you’re getting out is with in tolerances and will fit together properly. Building test segments and measuring how the behave and then going back and readjusting all the tools to account for differences and altering the design to match what you can actually make. Also all the people who knew the ins and outs of the old designs and manufacturing processes to make them are retired (and probably have forgotten some stuff) or dead. Recreating those production lines, manufacturing methods, retesting and dialing it all in, it would be expensive and time consuming, more so than just building something new based on modern manufacturing techniques and using already produced parts.

And we have been doing that… but it’s not getting nearly the same level of funding the Apollo program had, nor the same level of political commitment. Between 1963 and 1971, nasa’s budget was on average double what it is today (accounting for inflation) and they were allowed to focus most of that on a single project for that whole 8 year period. Compare that to today where nasa has hundreds of different projects ( ISS, near earth science satellites, mars rovers, probes to asteroids and outer planets, Artemis) and their goals and plans get whiplashed about every 4 years each time the administration changes. Not to mention Boeing routinely running over budget and over time and forcing nasa to foot the bill for their fuck ups. Blue origin and space X are also behind schedule on their lander projects as well.

So why were we able to do it back then and can’t now? NASA got the funding they needed, got to focus most of it on a single project and got to make a long term plan and stick with it, and private companies were much less willing to screw them over for a quick buck.

Gotta put this guy in a room with my high school astronomy teacher. He DESPISED moon landing conspiracy theorists. I still remember when he showed us a documentary about them and kept yelling at every person in it for believing this stuff.

That’s no moon.

they do not provide proof. why should you? he could as well argue my bookshelf didn't exist, since none of you have seen it yourself. but is this a discussion worth having?

also: the underlying idea, that modern tech could do better whatever a human has done without it, is just naïve. we do not build much rounded shapes in windows and stuff anymore bc our machines work best and most efficient for straight cuts if we want to make use of their power we have to build a certain way.

Why aren't the old Apollo designs being reused for a moon landing? (by either the Americans or the Chinese)

If you want to address this question, show him some videos about Boeing and Airbus and how they can't bring back airplane models they stopped production on because of massive supply chain issues. See if your friend is willing to accept that they can't bring back the 747, for instance.

If this is a problem for aircraft, it is likely also a problem for spacecraft.

Don’t waste your time. At this point it’s willful ignorance.

Velco them to a stiff board, tilt it so their head is reclined, cover their face with a rag, and pour Tang onto them until they acquiesce.